Apple and Google/Motorola Agree to Settle Patent Litigation, Work Together on Patent Reform

[cdmoore74]

Read the last sentence of my last post and you have your answer.

Your examples have larger batteries, so it's hardly surprising. In the extreme case size (and weight) also matters of course.

So what's your point? If a phone last just as long and charges faster and has a bigger display with a higher resolution I don't see the problem. Of course with a larger phone comes a larger battery. Why waste the space? You wouldn't put a 10 gallon gas tank in a full size pickup.
I fully expect Apple to have a larger battery in the iPhone 6. You make it sound as if Apple will somehow use the same battery capacity between iPhone 5s and iPhone 6. I'd rather have a fat phone with excellent battery life vs. a skinny one with the same. With a S5 that's possible with a removable battery and battery door. And it's the same reason why I love those iPhone battery cases.

 

[subsonix]

You also seem to be forgetting that an Android homescreen isnt just a grid of static apps. There cold be widgets updating using battery as well.

I don't see what your point is, I'm not disagreeing with the last post, oddly that doesn't seem to stop people from confronting with various "proofs". Also, for a test it would be very odd to have extra applications running in the background, for normal usage, all operating system have background processes that does all sort of things.

----------

So what's your point?

My point is, it's pointless to try to attempt to break down how the power is used as it relies on information that we don't have. In the end it's battery life that is important regardless of what consumes it.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

You sound like someone who thinks he's always right and everyone mostly ignores.

Because I understand how the world/business works?

 

[Dave.UK]

Because I understand how the world/business works?

I dont think you do.

Music sales are declining because music is 'old word' media.
Apple needs to get on board with the modern era, IE video.
Getting killed by Amazon and Netflix.

I don't understand why Apple would buy Beats.
Music is a dying industry with video being the next frontier.

Apple need to realize that music is a dying medium and get onboard with the video train.

 

[Mockenrue]

Another big factor with battery life is the actual "off" nature of AMOLED pixels. I prefer black backgrounds for improved readability and reduced eye strain. This greatly benefits the battery life on my 2200 mAh Moto X with 4.7" screen (currently 70% remaining after 1d 6h 38m with admittedly lighter "weekend usage", but still...). On the other hand, the black backgrounds that I use on my iPad don't help because it still uses the same backlight (not to mention poorer contrast ratio).

 

[Tech198]

someone is making up

 

[kdarling]

My point is, it's pointless to try to attempt to break down how the power is used as it relies on information that we don't have. In the end it's battery life that is important regardless of what consumes it.

Exactly. People don't care how something gets its battery life, they just want enough to fit their needs.

someone is making up

Does that mean we can expect makeup sex between Google and Apple?

 

[AdonisSMU]

One hand washes the other.

 

[Arndroid]

Net win for Apple? Not likely. Not only have they come out looking like bullies in the eyes of many, they are directly responsible for giving Samsung so much free advertising and publicity (for good or bad), that they made the Galaxy series of phones synonymous with Android! And that is not a good thing.

Now here is why I think Apple settled with Google AND this is the only reason: Google's patent for rich notifications and the Notification Center, which has been sitting in the USPTO for over 6 years is probably about to be granted. If Google were inclined, they would be able to sue and show proof positive that Apple willfully and deliberately stole this patent, putting it on every hardware product they make, save for the ATV. This could amount to tens of billions of dollars as well as bans on every single product Apple makes, in particular the iPhone. Apple would prefer to not risk this. This is my guess as to why Apple is doing this.

Lastly, Google didn't overpay for Motorola. You do know they got nearly all that cash back by splitting up the set top box portion and the sale to Lenovo. Not like they spent 3 billion on a headphone company. Wink wink

Wat on whole post

Plus Google did overpay for Motorola. Beats actually makes money. Google sold the set top business for 2.35 billion and the remainder for 2.91 billion. Google paid 12.5 billion dollars for Motorola. Your math does not come close to adding up. You said they nearly got their cash back when they actually only got 42% of their cash back. We are talking about almost 7 billion dollars more.

Anyone who thinks that is a better deal than buying beats should continue their career in a non management only position.

----------

How much was Motorola worth in your expert opinion?

Negative two billion or so.

----------

Motorola wasn't planning on suing Apple until they got wind of Apple's pending lawsuit against them.

Motorola scrambled and managed to file first so they could set the court venue, instead of Apple being able to do so as usual.

So Motorola got off the first shot, but it was Apple who started the war.



The evidence is quite the opposite: by bidding them up, Google got Apple's consortium to massively overpay for the Nortel patents. In the end, Google paid the same price per patent.

The difference is with what came with those patents, and how they ended up

The Nortel patents came with nothing else, and all of them have ended up being assigned to a new patent troll organization. Not a great investment in the end.

--

OTOH, Google's purchase not only got the patents, but also Motorola Mobility, which came with $3 billion in cash reserves AND a cell phone company AND a settop box company AND a top R&D group AND tax write offs.

So $12.5B - $3B cash - $2.4B settop sale - $1B+ in tax writeoffs during ownership - $2.9B sale of phones to Lenovo = total payout of ~$3B for patents... PLUS...

Google kept the Motorola Advanced Technology and Projects Group, which is headed by a former DARPA director. These are the people doing things like tattoo passwords, stomach acid powered diagnostic pills, the Project Ara build-it-yourself smartphone and the Moto360 watch.

It's clear who got the better deal.

You forgot to include the money google lost operating the unit. Tax write offs are not magic money.

 

[Arndroid]

Because we should listen to you rather than the guy who actually used logic, reasoning and stats to back up his position ....


----------



Funny how when you are presented with an actual argument you have no response...

Counting tax wire offs and not including all the money they lost operating the unit is fundamentally unsound and not logical. Kdarling just did a really bad work up to try and cover up a really bad deal. The worst part is even with his nonsense he still left a 3 billion dollar hole claiming the patents are worth that.

At best google lost SEVERAL billion dollars on this deal. There is no logical way to spin it into being a good deal or even borderline questionable. This is the risk you take when you buy businesses that lose money for reasons other than what they do. This actually showcases what a potentially good deal beats is. Say apple really just wants the streaming service and music expertise and compare it to google wanting Motorola patents. Google had to take on a failing business. The only way it would work out for them is if the patents were super valuable. Instead the patents crashed in value and the Motorola business albatross was even worse than expected. On the other hand if the streaming service and music expertise don't deliver for apple at all, the core business works, makes money and will generate profit. If sold later on would likely sell for as much or more than when purchased. Google took on a huge albatross on a chance that the patents might help them. Apple would welcome a money making machine on a chance the streaming service could be the foundation of something even more valuable.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Kdarling just did a really bad work up to try and cover up a really bad deal. The worst part is even with his nonsense he still left a 3 billion dollar hole claiming the patents are worth that.

At best google lost SEVERAL billion dollars on this deal.

So tell us, how much are those 25000 patents worth?

What's your source for your claim they lost several billion?

 

[kdarling]

Counting tax wire offs and not including all the money they lost operating the unit is fundamentally unsound and not logical.

My fault. I reduced the tax write off by the operating loss, but didn't spell it out. Your calculations didn't even include the $3B of cash reserves.

Btw, here's one of the better known original breakdowns of Google's cost:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...torola-mobility-only-cost-google-1-5-billion/

Kdarling just did a really bad work up to try and cover up a really bad deal. The worst part is even with his nonsense he still left a 3 billion dollar hole claiming the patents are worth that.

If you're going to debate using insults instead of facts, at least quote me correctly. I said the patents AND the Advanced Technologies group is what they got in the end for the money.

Even leaving out the group, that's only about $120K per Motorola patent. Peanuts compared to the $750K per Nortel patent that Apple's group paid after Google kept jacking up the bids. (And apparently most were out of date, raising the price to more like $2 million per patent.)

--

I actually came back to this thread in hopes that someone can find the statement that Google and Apple supposedly issued. In the typical internet echo chamber way, there seems to be no actual source text anywhere.

Anyone know where the actual statement (not the court dismissal paper) is? Thanks!

 

[Keane16]

This site gets more and more hilarious.

Net win for Apple? Not likely. Not only have they come out looking like bullies in the eyes of many, they are directly responsible for giving Samsung so much free advertising and publicity (for good or bad), that they made the Galaxy series of phones synonymous with Android! And that is not a good thing.

They look like bullies? Only to idiots. Let's not forget Motorola sued Apple first, Apple counter-sued: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Mobility_v._Apple_Inc. How anyone makes Apple the bully in this story is interesting.

Now here is why I think Apple settled with Google AND this is the only reason: Google's patent for rich notifications and the Notification Center, which has been sitting in the USPTO for over 6 years is probably about to be granted. If Google were inclined, they would be able to sue and show proof positive that Apple willfully and deliberately stole this patent, putting it on every hardware product they make, save for the ATV. This could amount to tens of billions of dollars as well as bans on every single product Apple makes, in particular the iPhone. Apple would prefer to not risk this. This is my guess as to why Apple is doing this.

Cool story about the patent - we have no idea why the 2 companies settled. You may be right. But I imagine it's more than just patents around notifications.

"willfully and deliberately stole this patent", awesome wording. It's almost like you work for an Apple competitor.

Lastly, Google didn't overpay for Motorola. You do know they got nearly all that cash back by splitting up the set top box portion and the sale to Lenovo.

I'm no Carol Voderman, but you seem to be a few billion off on your assumption that "they got nearly all that cash back".

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-...iness-but-keeping-some-patents-214150173.html

$4 Billion seems like a fair wedge of cash to be losing on the deal? It's a third of the initial cost.

Not like they spent 3 billion on a headphone company. Wink wink

We could say that Google spent that amount on a thermostat maker that makes little to no money, has small market share and small mind share.

Or we could be smart and appreciate that Google wanted the slick hardware abilities that Nest posses and we'll hopefully see Google's hardware offerings improved in the future. And that Apple most likely wants Beats for it's subscription service and the powerful music executives, 2 things that would strengthen Apple's offerings - along with a large well known global headphone brand that has solid revenues and margins.

 

[Oletros]

$4 Billion seems like a fair wedge of cash to be losing on the deal? It's a third of the initial cost.

Why do you count them as loses?

 

[kdarling]

They look like bullies? Only to idiots. Let's not forget Motorola sued Apple first, Apple counter-sued: How anyone makes Apple the bully in this story is interesting.

Apple had planned to file suit against Motorola first, but Moto got wind of it and beat Apple to filing by a couple of weeks.

Filing first allowed Moto to set the venue in their own area, instead of Apple using their more friendly California courts.

Or we could be smart and appreciate that Google wanted the slick hardware abilities that Nest posses and we'll hopefully see Google's hardware offerings improved in the future. And that Apple most likely wants Beats for it's subscription service and the powerful music executives,

Good point.

Likewise, Google kept Motorola's world class R&D group, which at the least is going to be coming out soon with the Moto 360 smartwatch. (That group alone is worth more than Nest, IMO. YMMV)

And then there's the patents. Apple owes back royalties for the Moto patents that now belong to Google.

Back in 2011, Apple settled with Nokia for their patents to the tune of more than a half billion dollars plus a suspected ongoing ~$11 per phone.

It would not be surprising if Apple were, in the end, to owe several dollars per phone to Motorola. Since Apple has sold over 500 million iPhones, with millions more all the time, that could be some nice extra payback to Google, further lowering the overall cost of acquisition.

 

[Keane16]

Apple had planned to file suit against Motorola first, but Moto got wind of it and beat Apple to filing by a couple of weeks.

Reminds me of the time I was just about to ask Beyonce out on a date and Jay-Z caught wind of the situation and beat me to it. Ah how I wonder what could have been.

In all seriousness if you have any sources which detail the back story I'd be interested in the read. If not, it's all conjecture and worthless to me.

Likewise, Google kept Motorola's world class R&D group, which at the least is going to be coming out soon with the Moto 360 smartwatch. (That group alone is worth more than Nest, IMO. YMMV)

The R&D arm may or may not be world class - hard to tell unless you have been involved with them. But as a company Motorola have definitely struggled to bring much to market to capture the public's attention. Maybe Google's ownership will change that. The 360 has a chunk of the internet's tongues wagging, but I'm still not convinced by it. I guess time will tell (as always), but I can see it being another loss maker.

Back in 2011, Apple settled with Nokia for their patents to the tune of more than a half billion dollars plus a suspected ongoing ~$11 per phone.

Nokia's patent portfolio is excellent and they've won many cases.

Motorola vs Microsoft on the other hand:

"In the ruling, U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle said Microsoft owed about $1.8 million, a slightly higher figure than Microsoft's offering price of $1 million a year.
Google-owned Motorola, on the other hand, argued that it should be paid a massive $4 billion a year for use of these devices, as a result of the revenue and profit generated by both Xbox and Windows.*"
http://www.zdnet.com/in-microsoft-p...gle-grossly-overpaid-for-motorola-7000014582/

That from what I've read is a big blow to Google in terms of their bought patent portfolio's effectiveness.

It would not be surprising if Apple were, in the end, to owe several dollars per phone to Motorola. Since Apple has sold over 500 million iPhones, with millions more all the time, that could be some nice extra payback to Google, further lowering the overall cost of acquisition.

Huge assumptions, and of course if that's how it plays out you're correct. As it stands we just don't know. It will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[kdarling]

In all seriousness if you have any sources which detail the back story I'd be interested in the read. If not, it's all conjecture and worthless to me.

Hi. Sorry for delay in response. It can be difficult to bring discussion latecomers up to speed. I don't mind, but even news links I've kept for years for this purpose can disappear. (Info on the internet doesn't always last forever, alas.)

--
The fact that Motorola lawsuit had been prompted by an oncoming Apple attack was well known at the time. Even Apple oriented sites like PatentlyApple were describing Motorola's actions as being a preemptive defensive response:

"When Motorola preemptively launched their declaration judgment action against Apple earlier this month, we knew that Apple was likely to launch multiple patent infringement lawsuits against Motorola ... "

--
Mueller at Foss Patents, still in his pro-Apple-lawsuit days, was even more explicit, stating:

"Regarding Apple's attack on Motorola, I've done a follow-up post that leaves no doubt about the fact that Apple was the aggressor. "

His followup article was titled:

Proof: Apple attacked Motorola, not the other way round

Motorola vs Microsoft on the other hand:

1) That case was not about cellular patents, in which Motorola played a much bigger role. (As in, they invented cellular.)

2) It's a good thing Judge Robart wasn't also deciding Apple's recent awards, since he clearly believes in giving only the value that a patent brings to the entire device. So Apple's claims of $12 for hot links wouldn't fly with him.

As you say, it'll be interesting to see how the royalties end up in this case. Hopefully they'll be cheap all around.

 

[funkybudda]

Rofl

typical bully behavior, Apple realized they cant win so they decided to play nice, hoping to catch an opportunity later on and turn the table again on other competitors.